Quackery begone!

Support and advice for when you are not appreciated.

Our opponents have called us quacks.

It used to be that the non-homeopaths didn't mind calling us quacks when they couldn't cure as many people as the homeopaths and had sour grapes over the fact that homeopaths were making a much better salary. The public voted for us with their pocketbook about a century ago and politics was more divided then. Now we still have things they can't figure out and they still don't like to talk about it. But we are less in competition with them than we used to be and it's politically incorrect to say your colleague is a quack. So with more scientific research and good results, we are becoming less and less of a quack to the traditional physicians.

Yes, there are quacks in homeopathy. 
Don't fall prey to them and don't be one.

Homeopathy spun off its share of quacks and fakers just like any other discipline because people are people and as Mr. Barnum has said "There's a sucker born every minute." I think the rest of that quote goes something like ". . . and five to take him." I want to encourage you to be neither an unassuming believer (and possibly a sucker) or an unknowing advocate of a disreputable form of medicine. You don't want a bad label if you don't deserve one and if you are studying homeopathy you should feel proud of its successes and its reputable history.

Don't be prey to being called a quack by surpassing the bounds of science.

There are many disreputable forms of science that surpass the boundaries of what science can explain. The key is knowing when to stop explaining about the phenomena you see.  Classical homeopathy stops explaining the disease symptoms as being unexplainable results of the 'spirit.' We do not know and we can not know. These are rational statements that are limited by physical boundaries. It is not for homeopathy to understand that unknown but for the spiritual person to question within their belief system.

Stick to the science. That's the important part.

Biology does not try to fathom the original creation of life. Physics does not try to chart the departure of the human life force. Nor does homeopathy try to explain the origins of disease.  These are mystical investigations that can be logically discussed but have little relevance to what you actually do when you get sick. The important part is getting a remedy that works.

Anyone can fail in logic with a reputable science. It doesn't mean it's quackery.

You have the legal right to be stupid. You can choose to take aspirin for all your ailments and attribute failure to not taking enough, taking too much, taking the wrong brand, taking it at the wrong time, taking it with the wrong food, etc. Most arts, respectable or not, are fraught with failures of that sort and full of successes that rely on none of the arts doing. Failing in logic doesn't mean that you are dealing in quackery.

Sharpen your logic.

There is something to be said for sharpening your general logic skills.  Talk to other people about the facts of cases, whether they are yours or ones you have read, suggesting alternative remedies.  Argue with Hahnemann in your mind when you read him.  Find assumptions in your discussions that need to be brought out in the open. If you strongly believe in one side of an issue, find out how to argue for the other side of the issue and debate it with a like-minded associate.

Homeopathy has been abused by other non-sciences and will continue to be.

I have listened to people who tried to bring an unjust union between astrology and homeopathy, Eastern religion and homeopathy, Western mysticism and homeopathy and many other things. They wanted to claim a spiritual right to homeopathy. Homeopathy couldn't care less. It will go on curing people without the extra baggage that it picks up along the ages.

Judge a reputable science by history.

How are you to judge what is worthwhile? Follow in the footsteps of those who have been respected over the years by many people. Hahnemann is worthy of many years of study. Kent and Allen as well as many other classically trained author/doctors are regarded as worthy also. Modern authors are not as accepted in the history of homeopathy yet. You would do best to ground yourself in the bedrock of classical homeopathy  before you tried to assault the towers of disputed topics today.  They may be attractive because of the personalities involved but have to be weighed by the scales of time.

Steer clear of those non-sciences.

By steering clear of the extraneous concerns of a mind that doesn't care for the well being of the sick we will be free to develop the same kind of devoted following that homeopaths once had a century ago. Things haven't changed much. Homeopathy is growing stronger every day. The less encumbered we are, the easier we will win the support of the public for the best medical system in practice and theory that there is.